L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[Balesir]

Illusionists and necromancers were broken? Wow, never heard that one before. I was always under the impression they were less optimal flavor builds. Do you mean some illusion spells were broken, or that players who restricted their spell list to contain mostly illusions were broken?

I've seen and played a lot of illusionists and necromancers in the last few editions (and pathfinder), I've heard them called underpowered, I've heard players complain that they'd rather you pick a class less annoying, but I've never heard them called broken.

I didn't say "broken" and I didn't mean that in the sense frequently used on the intarnetz. Illusions and charms in earlier editions could be either underpowered (possibly to ridiculous extents) or grossly overpowered - depending entirely on what the DM could be persuaded was a "logical" interpretation of the written effects. I have seen illusions of gaping chasms ruled as doing the same damage that falling down a real chasm of the illusion's apparent depth would give ('cos the orcs absolutely believe they have fallen, and hit points are not just physical injury...). I have also seen it ruled that an illusory bridge over a real chasm has no effect (because as soon as they step on it they touch it and so dispel it). I have seen Charm Person used to get a bank manager to open a safe and leave the room; I have also seen it ruled that the charmed creature will not stop attacking the caster but will just switch to subdual damage ('cos they remember that the caster was attacking their friends, so they still need to restrain him...) It's a set of effects that could be either broken overpowered or crazy underpowered or anywhere in between - depending on how good the player using them is at persuading the particular DM about what they "would, realistically" do.

Summons are simpler: old-style summoning spells just meant that one player gets to play an army (maybe 5-6 turns per combat round) while the mere mortals get to play one (for their own character). This applies to necromancers, too, even though "Animate Dead" might not be a summoning, technically.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

damn... misclicked... don´t look at the xp line above...

I like this article. I like to ignore rules. My group constantly gets imbalanced magic items. I tend to ignore the battle grid and never used a treasure parcel, instead i rolled for random encounters. I ignored most of the balnced encounter advise, but used the suggested xp values as guidelines.

It mostly worked.

I like this approach in 5e.

But: i liked the initial idea of roles: If you fall back to at wills, you can still do your base role in combat. The PHB fighter, with striker like dailies and encounters can still defend, when everything else is used. The thief always has sneak attack to fall back to etc.

So as far as roles go, no universal mechanic needed, but something that any class can do all day long.
The cleric should be able to invoke the power of god to temporarily buff your party, the wizard should have some at will tricks at its hand (even if they are just cantrips like ghost sound etc)
the fighter should always be abe to draw his sword and say: "you shall not pass"

 

[D'karr]

After all he said the only thing that interest you is that roles are out? This forum isn't what it used to be.

What about advice for new players in the books. What kind of advice it should be?

He even claims to give us a flowchart for crafting an adventure. Don't you think that is a tad bit more interesting?

When all the arguments against a particular game are based on X, all that matters to those complaining is that X is no longer there. It's playing a game of "vindication".

There are a multitude of things to discuss that would be interesting but the "hate" of X, Y, or Z, seems to be so much more important.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the CR, and since they said "feel free to ignore", it shouldn't be an issue.

The encounter budget is better! Especially after MM3!
"Monster level = your level => 50% chance to die"
is easier than
"One monster of challenge rating x is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 people of level x, which means it should waste 20% of your sesources"
Which actually about translates into "if you face one monster of CR = your level" your chances to die will be about 50% if you expend all your resources"

I rather like the 4e approach, but i never encountered any problems with the 3.x system.

 

[GreyICE]

The encounter budget is better! Especially after MM3!
"Monster level = your level => 50% chance to die"
is easier than
"One monster of challenge rating x is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 people of level x, which means it should waste 20% of your sesources"
Which actually about translates into "if you face one monster of CR = your level" your chances to die will be about 50% if you expend all your resources"

I rather like the 4e approach, but i never encountered any problems with the 3.x system.

A level 7 barbarian was CR 7. That was exactly what their CR rules said for PC classes.

Now a level 7 barbarian is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 level 7 barbarians...

 

[Hussar]

Y'know I wonder if Mr Mearls is being a tiny bit sneaky. On one hand it looks like he's saying that roles are going to go out the window, which is cause for much rejoicing in some quarters. But,

I'd much rather see roles cast as advice that highlights some basic strategies that players can follow. For instance, the advice for the cleric might explain how the class excels at healing. If you're playing a cleric and want some guidance on what to do, that advice can suggest some spells and abilities, along with tactics for use during the game.

is exactly what a role IS. When you get past all the hyperbole (Roles restrict roleplay! Roles force us to eat brocolli) and sit down and actually look at what a role does, this is precisely what a 4e role is - advice on how a given class works in play. People keep thinking that the role comes first and then all the powers are built on that - fighters are defenders, so, all the powers for fighters have to be defender powers.

But that isn't true. It might have been true for the first PHB, although, even there, it's not really accurate. A fighter, to keep on the same example, is a defender. He's got that sticky power right up front. But, if you actually look at his powers, there's all sorts of other stuff in there - controller bits and striker bits. Making a striker fighter is easy right out of the PHB 1. With the DDI, making a Leader fighter isn't all that difficult.

Right from the outset, roles are simply a shorthand for what a class is generally about. But, it's never been a straightjacket. Mearls knows that. I know he knows that. He's written far too much of the material not to know that. But, people who don't play 4e, or with limited experience with the system, only see "ROLE! YOU MUST BE THIS!" so, he downplays the role role plays and still gives 4e players exactly what they're used to.

I'm thinking this is a pretty sweet bait and switch.

 

[Bluenose]

As anything, it depends on how it's done. Soldiers make great medics in Star Wars Saga Edition, but it's based on a skill roll and use of some equipment so it doesn't feel out of place. Nobles inspire with leadership and that provides some buffing. I don't think most people would have too much problem with similar abilities for 5e fighters. Flavor does matter.

If it's done with the cleric getting all the healing magic they've had previously, and the fighter relying on the Treat Injury/Surgery skill/feat combination, I know which one is going to be vastly more useful. So do you. It works in SWSE because other sources of healing are extremely limited. If D&D is made to work that way, I predict people are going to be unhappy with the 'nerf' to clerics. Similarly with Nobles and their Leadership tree, compared to buff spells. It's not as good as magic, people will complain if magic is weakened, and while it provides lip-service to the idea that a class can take on a different role that class is for practical purposes only able to perform a very limited version of it.

If you aren't going to let classes perform a role competently, don't say that letting them be incompetent at something means you aren't pigeon-holing classes by role.

 

[hanez]

I would argue that for every choice 4ed removed for a caster, it added a choice for a martial class. But that is often overlooked.

Really all I can hear you say is roles are bad because they are in 4ed. I'm afraid we're not getting any further with this.

I like adding options to martial classes. All for it in fact. I think 2e's combat and tactics, 3es Tome of battle, Monte Cookes - Iron heroes, and 4es power system are all great examples of giving options to martial classes. My only note would be I am also for providing simple versions of martial classes to the players as well. I have a couple players who love the simple, at will, attack 4 times a round fighter, and I don't think that should be removed from the game.

And how am I saying roles are bad because they are in 4e? I feel you are purposefully trying to misunderstand my posts. Roles are bad when they are used to narrow what a class could previously do. Roles are bad when they assume that every player/class must fill a role at all. If a player wants to pick random powers let them, if a player wants to pick powers that are largely non combat, the system should let that and not silo it away. "Combat" roles are bad (imo) because they put further unneeded focus on tactile combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A level 7 barbarian was CR 7. That was exactly what their CR rules said for PC classes.

Now a level 7 barbarian is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 level 7 barbarians...

just look into the book. This is how it was defined. Notice, that an appropriate chalenge should use up 20% of the resources. If you read the whole paragraph, you would have noticed.

 

[Agamon]

I think having roles that delineate everyone in combat is less necessary if fights don't take forever to play out. If fights play out as quickly as has been described in the base game, maybe everyone doesn't need to be able to do something significant each and every fight to enjoy themselves.